Ali Sina, a former muslim and Islamic scholar, challenges http://www.faithfreedom.org... any muslim to disprove or refute his not-so-flattering claims about Muhammad being a mass murderer, terrorist, looter, pedophile, narcissist, and more.

Instead of the death threats from angry muslims he continually receives from the content on his site (talk about freedom of speech, peace, and religious tolerance. yeah right.), why not challenge him to a logical debate based on reason and source proof? If you prove him and his allegations wrong, he'll close down his site and pay you 50,000$. Pretty generous terms, if you ask me.

For those who want to know how to rebutt muslims and the evil religion of Islam, there are many excellent sources online - put together by scholars who have spent years researching Islam and it's evil founder. I Contact me and I'll provide you with some. There are many also excellent rebuttals to the common muslim objections that say Aisha was much older than 9yrs old when she married/had sex with Muhammad. This is false. Muhammad was truly a proven pedophile. Muslims, please inform yourselves, leave this evil religion of Islam, and save your soul.

At 1/18/2011 1:25:14 PM, Mirza wrote:Let him do an open debate. For instance, he has the nerves to attack Islam by hiding somewhere in his hut, but why doesn't he stand up in a debate?

OK, come with one of his allegations. If I disprove them, I'll have $50,000. Is that a deal?

Dear Mirza,

He is not hiding. His challenge is online for any and all to see and respond to. Contact him. Set up a public debate with him and go for the 50,000$ goal. It is HIS challenge, not mine.

Plus, you couldn't even refute my response and rebuttals to the contradiction I pointed out between Bukhari and the Quran. Even though you were the one that wanted to debate this topic. You cannot rebut me with any evidence. And I have so many other contradictions I could have pointed out. But you bailed out.

At 1/18/2011 1:25:14 PM, Mirza wrote:Let him do an open debate. For instance, he has the nerves to attack Islam by hiding somewhere in his hut, but why doesn't he stand up in a debate?

OK, come with one of his allegations. If I disprove them, I'll have $50,000. Is that a deal?

Dear Mirza,

He is not hiding. His challenge is online for any and all to see and respond to. Contact him. Set up a public debate with him and go for the 50,000$ goal. It is HIS challenge, not mine.

Yes, he is hiding. We have Muslim orators like Dr. Zakir Naik, who can break up any attack on Islam in no time. Ali Sina's website has been refuted many times, both on YouTube videos and various Islamic sites, but to no avail for the owner. Let him stand up as a real man and have $50,000 prepared in the real world, not on a lying, evil website content that is coded and written by cavemen.

Plus, you couldn't even refute my response and rebuttals to the contradiction I pointed out between Bukhari and the Quran. Even though you were the one that wanted to debate this topic. You cannot rebut me with any evidence. And I have so many other contradictions I could have pointed out. But you bailed out.

Thank you. My thought came true.

You see, when you waited two weeks to respond, I said nothing to you. When I wait for a while - and you don't know why - you tell me what I can and can't rebut, and that I "bail out."

At 1/18/2011 1:25:14 PM, Mirza wrote:Let him do an open debate. For instance, he has the nerves to attack Islam by hiding somewhere in his hut, but why doesn't he stand up in a debate?

OK, come with one of his allegations. If I disprove them, I'll have $50,000. Is that a deal?

Dear Mirza,

He is not hiding. His challenge is online for any and all to see and respond to. Contact him. Set up a public debate with him and go for the 50,000$ goal. It is HIS challenge, not mine.

Yes, he is hiding. We have Muslim orators like Dr. Zakir Naik, who can break up any attack on Islam in no time. Ali Sina's website has been refuted many times, both on YouTube videos and various Islamic sites, but to no avail for the owner. Let him stand up as a real man and have $50,000 prepared in the real world, not on a lying, evil website content that is coded and written by cavemen.

Lol Falsehood cannot refute Truth. your scholars such as Dr. Zakir Naik have onl refuted attacks in their own minds and interpretations - with no source proof to back them up. Islamic scholars will never be able to refute or cover up the evil past of Muhammad. His embarrassing actions, such as the killing and mass murdering of almost entire Jewish tribes with NO valid reason whatsoever can never be washed away or absolved - even by 'allah'.

Plus, you couldn't even refute my response and rebuttals to the contradiction I pointed out between Bukhari and the Quran. Even though you were the one that wanted to debate this topic. You cannot rebut me with any evidence. And I have so many other contradictions I could have pointed out. But you bailed out.

Thank you. My thought came true.

You see, when you waited two weeks to respond, I said nothing to you. When I wait for a while - and you don't know why - you tell me what I can and can't rebut, and that I "bail out."

At 1/18/2011 1:25:14 PM, Mirza wrote:Let him do an open debate. For instance, he has the nerves to attack Islam by hiding somewhere in his hut, but why doesn't he stand up in a debate?

OK, come with one of his allegations. If I disprove them, I'll have $50,000. Is that a deal?

Dear Mirza,

He is not hiding. His challenge is online for any and all to see and respond to. Contact him. Set up a public debate with him and go for the 50,000$ goal. It is HIS challenge, not mine.

Yes, he is hiding. We have Muslim orators like Dr. Zakir Naik, who can break up any attack on Islam in no time. Ali Sina's website has been refuted many times, both on YouTube videos and various Islamic sites, but to no avail for the owner. Let him stand up as a real man and have $50,000 prepared in the real world, not on a lying, evil website content that is coded and written by cavemen.

Lol Falsehood cannot refute Truth. your scholars such as Dr. Zakir Naik have onl refuted attacks in their own minds and interpretations - with no source proof to back them up. Islamic scholars will never be able to refute or cover up the evil past of Muhammad. His embarrassing actions, such as the killing and mass murdering of almost entire Jewish tribes with NO valid reason whatsoever can never be washed away or absolved - even by 'allah'.

When someone says "Allah" and calls himself a Christian, it means that he doesn't know a little piece of the Arabic language. On top of that, it also means that his knowledge of Islamic history is little, too.

At 1/18/2011 1:25:14 PM, Mirza wrote:Let him do an open debate. For instance, he has the nerves to attack Islam by hiding somewhere in his hut, but why doesn't he stand up in a debate?

OK, come with one of his allegations.:

The allegations are lain before you. Pick one and debunk it.

There's no need for that. First of all, there are many allegations. Picking one and debunking it would change nothing about spiritlife. Second, I asked spiritlife to pick something. Anything about contradictions in Qur'an or whatever else the site speaks about, I am ready to debunk it.

See the stupidity for yourself:

"Muslims' main preoccupation is Islam. They are required to regularly go to the mosque, attend obligatory prayers five times a day, listen to the sermons, etc. So enwrapped do they become in their thinking about how to perform their religious duties, what to wear, what to eat, how to perform their prayers, etc. that they are left with very little time for thinking of anything else. In fact, they are even told what to think and what not to think."

At 1/18/2011 1:25:14 PM, Mirza wrote:Let him do an open debate. For instance, he has the nerves to attack Islam by hiding somewhere in his hut, but why doesn't he stand up in a debate?

OK, come with one of his allegations.:

The allegations are lain before you. Pick one and debunk it.

There's no need for that. First of all, there are many allegations. Picking one and debunking it would change nothing about spiritlife. Second, I asked spiritlife to pick something. Anything about contradictions in Qur'an or whatever else the site speaks about, I am ready to debunk it.

See the stupidity for yourself:

"Muslims' main preoccupation is Islam. They are required to regularly go to the mosque, attend obligatory prayers five times a day, listen to the sermons, etc. So enwrapped do they become in their thinking about how to perform their religious duties, what to wear, what to eat, how to perform their prayers, etc. that they are left with very little time for thinking of anything else. In fact, they are even told what to think and what not to think."

What's this even about? What's wrong with that?

He is saying that you are a slave, and can even be punished for thought crimes. In other words, your god a nothing more than a sadistic slave master, and you are a willing slave.

At 1/18/2011 1:59:25 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:He is saying that you are a slave, and can even be punished for thought crimes. In other words, your god a nothing more than a sadistic slave master, and you are a willing slave.

We are, willingly, obeying God. We Muslims are not punished for thinking about anything. Our thoughts come and go, we can't always control them, and God will forgive that part. However, yes, we are slaves to God in the sense that we don't murder, rape, steal, spread corruption, etc. I was slave to my parents when I was younger, and I am grateful for that. I turned out to be a humane human, not one who tries to make others' lives tough or something similar. Call that slavery, but it's not wrong. We're all slaves in one way or another.

At 1/18/2011 1:59:25 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:He is saying that you are a slave, and can even be punished for thought crimes. In other words, your god a nothing more than a sadistic slave master, and you are a willing slave.

We are, willingly, obeying God. We Muslims are not punished for thinking about anything. Our thoughts come and go, we can't always control them, and God will forgive that part. However, yes, we are slaves to God in the sense that we don't murder, rape, steal, spread corruption, etc. I was slave to my parents when I was younger, and I am grateful for that. I turned out to be a humane human, not one who tries to make others' lives tough or something similar. Call that slavery, but it's not wrong. We're all slaves in one way or another.

At 1/18/2011 1:18:16 PM, spiritislife wrote:Ali Sina, a former muslim and Islamic scholar, challenges http://www.faithfreedom.org... any muslim to disprove or refute his not-so-flattering claims about Muhammad being a mass murderer, terrorist, looter, pedophile, narcissist, and more.

Instead of the death threats from angry muslims he continually receives from the content on his site (talk about freedom of speech, peace, and religious tolerance. yeah right.), why not challenge him to a logical debate based on reason and source proof? If you prove him and his allegations wrong, he'll close down his site and pay you 50,000$. Pretty generous terms, if you ask me.

For those who want to know how to rebutt muslims and the evil religion of Islam, there are many excellent sources online - put together by scholars who have spent years researching Islam and it's evil founder. I Contact me and I'll provide you with some. There are many also excellent rebuttals to the common muslim objections that say Aisha was much older than 9yrs old when she married/had sex with Muhammad. This is false. Muhammad was truly a proven pedophile. Muslims, please inform yourselves, leave this evil religion of Islam, and save your soul.

Response: If Ali Sina, truly was offering 50,000 dollars, he owes hundreds of Muslims already who have debunked him repeatedly. It is clear that Muhammad is a true prophet. You should be more concerned about your bible and the murderous Jesus depicted inside. From the claims of not bringing peace, but a sword by Jesus himself in the bible, to the blasphemous stories of incest by the prophets and sex with little girls and even God himself getting jealous when his whore does not stay committed to him in Ezekiel. Seriously, you should really throw that slanderous bible away and embrace the true religion of islam and follower the last and final prophet, Prophet Muhammad.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

Faithfreedom.org is an inflammatory site filled with right-wingers who don't know a thing about Islam and are just jumping on the Islam IS EVIL!1!! bandwagon. A better site to visit would be www.ex-muslim.org.uk/. The people there are much more intelligent and balanced, on the whole. Mostly because they are exmuslims who've studied Islam extensively (if one is doubting their faith, but can't bear to let it go, they study and try to eradicate those doubts) rather than people who only know about Islam through the media.

At 1/19/2011 2:03:22 AM, HatedeatH wrote:What's with all these threads about Muhammad?

Some people feel it necessary to defend evil pieces of $hit, because otherwise, their lives would have no meaning. After all, what kind of world would it be without suicide bombs, airplane missiles, stonings, sexism, illiteracy, and general cruelty? I dare say, if it is proved that Muhammad was a sick freak(which he was), then would that not put the Qur'an into perspective as a sick freakish text?

At 1/19/2011 2:03:22 AM, HatedeatH wrote:What's with all these threads about Muhammad?

Muslim worship Muhammad as an idol, and take his character very seriously.

It's kind of like how the Christians believe in a trinity, but say there is one god.. Muslims will say that Muhammad was a man who shouldn't be worshiped.. But they obviously do it anyway.

True Islam is the way, friends. It is a non-prophet organization. There is no idolatry in True Islam.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

Response: If Ali Sina, truly was offering 50,000 dollars, he owes hundreds of Muslims already who have debunked him repeatedly. It is clear that Muhammad is a true prophet. You should be more concerned about your bible and the murderous Jesus depicted inside. From the claims of not bringing peace, but a sword by Jesus himself in the bible, to the blasphemous stories of incest by the prophets and sex with little girls and even God himself getting jealous when his whore does not stay committed to him in Ezekiel. Seriously, you should really throw that slanderous bible away and embrace the true religion of islam and follower the last and final prophet, Prophet Muhammad.

It is clear Muhammad is a false prophet on so many accounts. He contradicts what the prophets have taught before him. No miracles. No eyewitnesses. No prophecies, only one vague reference in the Quran, which can be easily disproven.

According to the Torah, which your own book confirms, God made his covenant with the children of Jacob. (Ex 19:3-5; Deut 18:15) Muhammad was Arab and does not descend from the offfspring of Isaac and Jacob, but that of Ishmael, which no true prophet can descend from.

"…it's through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maid servant (i.e. Ishmael) into a nation also, because he is your offspring" [Genesis 21:12-13].

Muslims say that the Quran 'gets it right' by stating that Muhammad descended through Abraham's son Ishmael, but offspring through the slave woman Hagar falls outside of the covenant, as she was Egyptian and not semitic - which is essential to the promise.

The Quran even contradicts itself on this issue (one of many instances.) Allah himself admits that only the Children of Israel were blessed with the right to Prophethood.

"We gave Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and ordained among his progeny prophet and revelation." (Quran Sura 29:27).

This is a serious contradiction in the Quran as Isaac and Jacob are separate from the line of Ishael.

Later on, an angry Allah accuses the Jews of corrupting their own Torah (that is a laugh! try to prove that one!) in order to push Muhammad as a true prophet. Sorry, no can do. Why do you change your story allah?

Furthermore, the words in the Torah about the promise of Prophethood were spoken through Moses - not Abraham, as the Quran gets completely wrong - as is often the case, when rehashing historical facts.

At 1/19/2011 1:07:11 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:It isn't clear that Muhammad is a prophet at all.

It is pure @ss baggery to claim otherwise.

Response: It is very much clear. It is pure denial or idiocy to claim otherwise.

Yeah, the Koran will lead you to believe that, but if you can get passed all the shouting of "You are a fvcking idiot, there is one god, Muhammed is his prophet, this is the truth" that is repeated ad naueum, and get back down to the nitty gritty...

We are looking at a man who claims to be laying down the perfect direct word of a god who isn't even known to exist. At the same time, Muslims in the middle east, and even the ones who try to defend their faith on the internet do not make their faith look any better.

Now I realize that most of the people here who attack Islam are ignorant wankers who probably never actually even read the Koran, and get most of their information indirectly, but it doesn't change the fact that you are trying to convince people of something that is simply unbelievable. Not only that, but you are trying to convince people of something that is unbelievable, AND it is tied to all sorts of negative things. Islam looks barbaric to an outsider, and you have to understand this, and show that not only is Islam not barbaric, but it's followers conduct themselves in a civilized way.

Hell, Islam is an infinitely easier religion to believe in than Christianity. It takes more work, but there are a lot less things to assume. You just have to find a better way of making a case for Islam.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

more concerned about your bible and the murderous Jesus depicted inside. From the claims of not bringing peace, but a sword by Jesus himself in the bible

I clearly refuted you on this "did Jesus advocate violence?" topic on the 'Is Islam False?" thread a while back. If you think otherwise: Provide clear alternative supporting evidence from the N.T Scriptures that the 'sword' in Matthew 10:32 that Jesus speaks of really does advocate killing or slaughtering others in His name.

If you can prove this successfully, as I said, I'll be happy to renounce my Christian Faith and send you 500$. C'mon, try your best to use something else in your defense - other than your own personal opinion or interpretation - on what that verse in Matthew 10:34 really means.

This passage alone clearly refutes your interpretation of Mttw10:35, (from the same Gospel):

Matthew Ch26:V51: " And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear. [52] Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

And here's another..

Jesus therefore said to Peter: Put up thy sword into the scabbard. The chalice which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?-John 18:11

Here the context is quite clear. Jesus clearly condemns the use of physical violence and the sword, even though He and His innocent followers are sleeping in a garden! and are being unjustly arrested and attacked by a gang of soldiers without any provocation.

On the contrary, instead of resorting to violence, he heals his enemy by performing a miracle and restoring a soldier's ear (Luke 22:51).

You are refuted. If you could provide similar quotes in your favor from the NT Scriptures in your defense, then you would have a rebut or a defense against mine. But you do not and cannot.

"O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee."

more concerned about your bible and the murderous Jesus depicted inside. From the claims of not bringing peace, but a sword by Jesus himself in the bible

I clearly refuted you on this "did Jesus advocate violence?" topic on the 'Is Islam False?" thread a while back. If you think otherwise: Provide clear alternative supporting evidence from the N.T Scriptures that the 'sword' in Matthew 10:32 that Jesus speaks of really does advocate killing or slaughtering others in His name.

If you can prove this successfully, as I said, I'll be happy to renounce my Christian Faith and send you 500$. C'mon, try your best to use something else in your defense - other than your own personal opinion or interpretation - on what that verse in Matthew 10:34 really means.

This passage alone clearly refutes your interpretation of Mttw10:35, (from the same Gospel):

Matthew Ch26:V51: " And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear. [52] Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

And here's another..

Jesus therefore said to Peter: Put up thy sword into the scabbard. The chalice which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?-John 18:11

Here the context is quite clear. Jesus clearly condemns the use of physical violence and the sword, even though He and His innocent followers are sleeping in a garden! and are being unjustly arrested and attacked by a gang of soldiers without any provocation.

On the contrary, instead of resorting to violence, he heals his enemy by performing a miracle and restoring a soldier's ear (Luke 22:51).

You are refuted. If you could provide similar quotes in your favor from the NT Scriptures in your defense, then you would have a rebut or a defense against mine. But you do not and cannot.

"O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee."

Response: Matthew 10:34 clearly says that Jesus himself says he came not to bring peace, which can only mean that he is violent. If you're not for peace, as Jesus clearly says according to your bible, the he condones violence. You owe me 500 dollars.

more concerned about your bible and the murderous Jesus depicted inside. From the claims of not bringing peace, but a sword by Jesus himself in the bible

I clearly refuted you on this "did Jesus advocate violence?" topic on the 'Is Islam False?" thread a while back. If you think otherwise: Provide clear alternative supporting evidence from the N.T Scriptures that the 'sword' in Matthew 10:32 that Jesus speaks of really does advocate killing or slaughtering others in His name.

If you can prove this successfully, as I said, I'll be happy to renounce my Christian Faith and send you 500$. C'mon, try your best to use something else in your defense - other than your own personal opinion or interpretation - on what that verse in Matthew 10:34 really means.

This passage alone clearly refutes your interpretation of Mttw10:35, (from the same Gospel):

Matthew Ch26:V51: " And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear. [52] Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

And here's another..

Jesus therefore said to Peter: Put up thy sword into the scabbard. The chalice which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?-John 18:11

Here the context is quite clear. Jesus clearly condemns the use of physical violence and the sword, even though He and His innocent followers are sleeping in a garden! and are being unjustly arrested and attacked by a gang of soldiers without any provocation.

On the contrary, instead of resorting to violence, he heals his enemy by performing a miracle and restoring a soldier's ear (Luke 22:51).

You are refuted. If you could provide similar quotes in your favor from the NT Scriptures in your defense, then you would have a rebut or a defense against mine. But you do not and cannot.

"O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee."

Response: Matthew 10:34 clearly says that Jesus himself says he came not to bring peace, which can only mean that he is violent. If you're not for peace, as Jesus clearly says according to your bible, the he condones violence. You owe me 500 dollars.

If you take that particular scripture in the correct context, it could easily mean that those who are going off to do the will of Jesus and the father will face great opposition from family who are against it.

Likewise, a lot of things that people point out in the Koran that are supposed to be indications of it's violent nature are usually scriptures taken out of context, or are scriptures that can easily be interpreted in a less violent way.

The Ahmadiyya interpretation of the Koran is probably the best at illustrating this.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

Response: Matthew 10:34 clearly says that Jesus himself says he came not to bring peace, which can only mean that he is violent. If you're not for peace, as Jesus clearly says according to your bible, the he condones violence. You owe me 500 dollars.

It only means this in your own mind! You are picking and choosing. Look at the other evidence against you; then look deep into your heart, and realize that your interpretation has nothing to stand upon....

Why can't you bring forth evidence - something somewhere else in the NT as clear as the other verses I quoted against you to support your claim? This is logical debate. Why do you pretend these other numerous verses in the NT which say the contrary to your allegation that Jesus Christ advocated violence do not exist? Because you know you have no true defense or rebutal against my evidence.

As I have proven earlier, there is no context of physical violence in this passage of Mt 10;34. The peace Jesus Christ brings is spiritual peace, not physical. He continues on in the next verse (Mt 10:35) to disprove you even futher by the context. Nothing pertaining to an actual physical battle or command is taking place; instead He addresses disputes among family members!

Mothers being at variance against their daughters.... Do you really think Jesus Christ is telling mothers to go and kill their daughters? Of course not. It is CLEARLY and obviously another use or meaning of the term 'sword' as the Bible has done other times.

Again, bring on the other source proof in your favor. You can't! Opinions are like noses. Everybody has one. If you can't, admit you have lost this argument fair and square.

I have clearly proven that Jesus Christ never, ever condoned or commanded physical violence anywhere in the NT. On the contrary, I have proven with numerous sources that He advocated the exact opposite. You are just a talking head until you can back up what you say with some other evidence somewhere.

Response: Matthew 10:34 clearly says that Jesus himself says he came not to bring peace, which can only mean that he is violent. If you're not for peace, as Jesus clearly says according to your bible, the he condones violence. You owe me 500 dollars.

It only means this in your own mind! You are picking and choosing. Look at the other evidence against you; then look deep into your heart, and realize that your interpretation has nothing to stand upon....

Why can't you bring forth evidence - something somewhere else in the NT as clear as the other verses I quoted against you to support your claim? This is logical debate. Why do you pretend these other numerous verses in the NT which say the contrary to your allegation that Jesus Christ advocated violence do not exist? Because you know you have no true defense or rebutal against my evidence.

As I have proven earlier, there is no context of physical violence in this passage of Mt 10;34. The peace Jesus Christ brings is spiritual peace, not physical. He continues on in the next verse (Mt 10:35) to disprove you even futher by the context. Nothing pertaining to an actual physical battle or command is taking place; instead He addresses disputes among family members!

Mothers being at variance against their daughters.... Do you really think Jesus Christ is telling mothers to go and kill their daughters? Of course not. It is CLEARLY and obviously another use or meaning of the term 'sword' as the Bible has done other times.

Again, bring on the other source proof in your favor. You can't! Opinions are like noses. Everybody has one. If you can't, admit you have lost this argument fair and square.

I have clearly proven that Jesus Christ never, ever condoned or commanded physical violence anywhere in the NT. On the contrary, I have proven with numerous sources that He advocated the exact opposite. You are just a talking head until you can back up what you say with some other evidence somewhere.

Response: It is truly hilarious to watch you backpeddle from what the verse obviously says. Your presentation of other verses as allegedly showing that the context demonstrates that the verse does not mean that Jesus is not for peace is ludicrous and hilarious. Matthew 10: 34 clearly says that Jesus came not to bring peace. So any verse stating otherwise is not context, but a contradiction. If I say "John is a black man" and you point to text that says "John is a white man", that is not context to prove that John is a white man, but a clear cut contradiction. Thus your alleged proof based on context is bogus, for it's based on the same faulty logic as I just explained. You still owe me 500 dollars.

At 1/19/2011 1:07:11 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:It isn't clear that Muhammad is a prophet at all.

It is pure @ss baggery to claim otherwise.

Response: It is very much clear. It is pure denial or idiocy to claim otherwise.

Yeah, the Koran will lead you to believe that, but if you can get passed all the shouting of "You are a fvcking idiot, there is one god, Muhammed is his prophet, this is the truth" that is repeated ad naueum, and get back down to the nitty gritty...

We are looking at a man who claims to be laying down the perfect direct word of a god who isn't even known to exist. At the same time, Muslims in the middle east, and even the ones who try to defend their faith on the internet do not make their faith look any better.

Now I realize that most of the people here who attack Islam are ignorant wankers who probably never actually even read the Koran, and get most of their information indirectly, but it doesn't change the fact that you are trying to convince people of something that is simply unbelievable. Not only that, but you are trying to convince people of something that is unbelievable, AND it is tied to all sorts of negative things. Islam looks barbaric to an outsider, and you have to understand this, and show that not only is Islam not barbaric, but it's followers conduct themselves in a civilized way.

Hell, Islam is an infinitely easier religion to believe in than Christianity. It takes more work, but there are a lot less things to assume. You just have to find a better way of making a case for Islam.

Response: Islam is one of the fastest growing religions and one of the largest. So your claims of islam being unbelievable, negative or barbaric to outsiders is baseless. Islam is clearly the true religion, proven by the fact that the spread of islam by Muhammad was a miracle which can be confirmed as we speak by anyone, thus proving that Muhammad is a true prophet and the qur'an is the true word of Allah. It is absolutely humanly impossible to even write a chapter like the qur'an, thus proving that the qur'an is from Allah. You disagree? Then produce a chapter like the qur'an and prove otherwise.

To all the non-Muslims: Let's all stop making outlandish claims and engage in formal debate. The forums get us nowhere. Mirza, Fatiha, and myself are all willing to debate you on your own parameters; setup your debate and let us know when you're ready.

At 1/20/2011 12:16:28 AM, m93samman wrote:To all the non-Muslims: Let's all stop making outlandish claims and engage in formal debate. The forums get us nowhere. Mirza, Fatiha, and myself are all willing to debate you on your own parameters; setup your debate and let us know when you're ready.

Response: Matthew 10: 34 clearly says that Jesus came not to bring peace. So any verse stating otherwise is not context, but a contradiction. If I say "John is a black man" and you point to text that says "John is a white man", that is not context to prove that John is a white man, but a clear cut contradiction. Thus your alleged proof based on context is bogus, for it's based on the same faulty logic as I just explained. You still owe me 500 dollars.

You are so self-righteous. MT 10;34 does not clearly advocate violence, period. Only in your own mind. You are interpreting with nothing to justify yourself. Anyone can claim that a verse from a 'holy' book means whatever they want it to. But that does not make it the truth.

In a logical debate, you must back up what you say with source proof: something other than your own opinion of what a particular verse means to prove your opposing point. You simply cannot in this case. You lost the debate.

In fact, you are not even debating! You can't bring forth one shred of evidence to support your own opinion about Mt 1O:34 - besides you insisting that 'you are right and I am wrong.'. This is pathetic. But Muslims do it all the time. You are saying: 'Verse A clearly means the 'man is white', and I am right no matter what you or Christians think." Really? Ok. Prove your point historically or with other source(s) from the NT. I say MT 10:34 is saying otherwise, I can prove it with Jesus' own actions, and I have.

Did Jesus Christ of the NT live a violent life? Did He carry a sword? Did He ever kill a man? Command His followers to kill in His Name and they actually did? If He did any of these things you would have a case in your favor, but you don't. Therefore you have failed miserably in proving Mt 10:34 advocates physical violence and that Jesus Christ in the NT was violent.